Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Trends in menthol and non-menthol cigarette consumption in the USA: 2000–2011
  1. Cristine D Delnevo1,
  2. Andrea C Villanti2,
  3. Gary A Giovino3
  1. 1Center for Tobacco Surveillance & Evaluation Research, Rutgers—School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
  2. 2LEGACY | The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Washington, DC, USA
  3. 3Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo; SUNY, Buffalo, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cristine D Delnevo, Center for Tobacco Surveillance & Evaluation Research, Rutgers—School of Public Health, 335 George Street, Suite 2100, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA; delnevo{at}{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) delivered its report on menthol in cigarettes,1 and in 2013, the FDA issued its independent evaluation of the impact of menthol on public health.2 ,3 The reports are consistent in their main conclusions that (1) menthol in cigarettes increases experimentation and progression to regular smoking, and (2) that menthol in cigarettes makes it harder for smokers to quit, especially African–American smokers. A recent analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health by Giovino et al documented the strong preference for menthol cigarettes among youth and echoed a 2011 report from the Substance …

View Full Text


  • Contributors CDD conceptualised the letter, compiled the data, drafted the article and gave final approval. ACV and GAG interpreted the data, helped revise the manuscript for intellectual content and approved the final version.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.